SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

142(1) - Penalty u/s 271F - non-filing of the Return of Income - HELD THAT:- Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified by Section 273B of the Act namely “Penalty not to be imposed

SHRI SANTOKH SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

The appeals of the assessees are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

142(1) - Penalty u/s 271F - non-filing of the Return of Income - HELD THAT:- Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intention clear in as much as that levy of Penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified by Section 273B of the Act namely “Penalty not to be imposed

SHRI SATISH KUMAR. S/O. SH. HANS RAJ ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4, HOSHIARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

142(1) dated 22.08.2016 (PB-17) which was replied by the assessee vide para No. 2 of which reply is placed the assessee Paper Book Page No. 18 and also detail explanation was filed vide paragraph No. 2 of explanation which is placed at the assessee`s Paper Book Page No. 25. With regard to recovery suit expenses, the learned

SH. JINDER PAL,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), AMRITSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

TDS has been deducted thereon. The AO has also not considered the fact that the assessee has voluntarily revised the computation of income before the assessment was finalized and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 5. That no penalty notice dated 10/03/2017 has been served upon the appellant and as such penalty imposed

SHRI CHANDAN BHARDWAJ,TARN TARAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, AMRITSAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Ravish Sood

TDS has been deducted thereon. The AO has also not considered the fact that the assessee has voluntarily revised the computation of income before the assessment was finalized and likewise CIT(A) is not justified while confirming the same. 5. That no penalty notice dated 10/03/2017 has been served upon the appellant and as such penalty imposed

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure. The assessee, though admitting the legal position, claims, albeit without any evidence, that the liability in respect of the impugned gratuity had, in fact, crystallized as at the year-end in-as-much as the relevant employee/s had superannuated during the relevant year/s. The assessee’s case

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU & KASHMIR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure. The assessee, though admitting the legal position, claims, albeit without any evidence, that the liability in respect of the impugned gratuity had, in fact, crystallized as at the year-end in-as-much as the relevant employee/s had superannuated during the relevant year/s. The assessee’s case

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SRINAGAR vs. M/S. J&K PROJECT CONSTRUCTION, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure. The assessee, though admitting the legal position, claims, albeit without any evidence, that the liability in respect of the impugned gratuity had, in fact, crystallized as at the year-end in-as-much as the relevant employee/s had superannuated during the relevant year/s. The assessee’s case

M/S. JAMMU & KASHMIR PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION,JAMMU vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SRINAGAR

In the result, as I am in concurrence with conclusion and reasoning given in rest part of the order dated 12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. Nos. 100 & 101/Asr/2014 Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2009-10

section 40A(7) which bars deduction in respect of provision for gratuity expenditure. The assessee, though admitting the legal position, claims, albeit without any evidence, that the liability in respect of the impugned gratuity had, in fact, crystallized as at the year-end in-as-much as the relevant employee/s had superannuated during the relevant year/s. The assessee’s case

NARINDER AND COMPANY,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

142(1) dated 21.10.2019. Further, the AR also relied upon annexure enclosed along with this notice placed at page no 27 of the paper book. It was also brought to the knowledge of the bench that during the assessment proceedings the assessee has submitted the following documents before the AO:- 1. copies of account of unsecured loans 2. TDS returns

SMT. SATVIR KAUR W/O SH. SHINDER SINGH,FEROZEPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS and agricultural income being in the nature of exempt income, the assessee opted for not filing of Income Tax Return for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2011-12. Further, the bank account maintained by the assessee in Oriental Bank of Commerce is in the joint name of assessee as well as her husband. It is worthwhile to mention

ITFAQ EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( EXEMPTIONS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 263 initiated against the assessee may please be dropped. Rejecting the above replies, the worthy CIT(E) has proceeded to issue an order u/s 263 setting aside the order of Ld. AO u/s 143(3). It is this order which the appellant assessee has assailed through this appeal. Your honors. Brief arguments in support of the appeal are: 1

SH. MUZAFFER JAN PAMPORI,SRINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SRINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

142(1) of the Act. In response, the assessee furnished the return of income on 17/01/2011 declaring an income of Rs. 6,640/-. The A.O. however framed the assessment exparte under section 144 of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 4,61,200/-. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed

MESERS G.G CONTINEENTAL TRADES PVT.LTD,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

1,17,17,142/-] has been considered as “deefned dividend” in the hands of the appellant and I find that this is, in fact, more than a reasonable view of the matter on the art of the AO. In view of the aforesaid, the action of the AO in treating the loans and advances received by the appellant company

MEASAGE G. G OILS & FATS PRIVATE LIMITED,BATHINDA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1 , BATHINDA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.189/Asr/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15

1,17,17,142/-] has been considered as “deefned dividend” in the hands of the appellant and I find that this is, in fact, more than a reasonable view of the matter on the art of the AO. In view of the aforesaid, the action of the AO in treating the loans and advances received by the appellant company

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS and for this reason tax was not deducted at source. Complete detail of freight payment in the two units is enclosed for your ready reference. The Explanation 2 to Section 263 reads as under:- “For the purpose of section 263 of Income Tax Act an order passed by the AO shall be deemed to be erroneous

JAGTAR SINGH BRAR PROP. JAGTAR SINGH SADHU SINGH,BAGAPURANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, MOGA, MOGA

In the result, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1) (c) amounting to Rs

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Khettra Mohan Roy

TDS deducted accordingly), which resulted in an apparent non -disclosure of gross contract receipts to the tune of Rs.1.73 crores, as per the return filed. 4. The assessee explained the difference that the said transport bill amount of Rs.1.73 crores has been actually received on 17th April, 2015, and the same has also been considered in the gross receipts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-IV,, PATHANKOT vs. THE GURDASPUR CENTRAL CO. OPBANK LTD, GURDASPUR

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meenaandsh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS are not attracted on the supply of pamphlets, banners and other stationery items to the assessee as the same does not fall in the definition of “work” by virtue of sub clause (e) of clause (iv) of the explanation of section 194C. The disallowance of Rs 34,90,828/- u/s 40a(ia) is therefore deleted.” The ld. Counsel further